- The discussion of whether exotic pets should be legal. In this case "wild animal" refers to any animal which isn't domesticated. As I've noted repeatedly, I am strongly in favor of people being able to keep exotic animals as pets, so it should come as no surprise that this usage pisses me off.
- The discussion of whether people should take baby animals from the wild and raise them. In this case, "wild" means "not captive-bred."
As a kid, I received a copy of The American Boy's Handy Book, and one of the most dog-worn sections was the one on raising baby birds to be pets. Of course when I asked at the nature camp my parents sent me to one session a summer, I would be dogmatically told the same thing: "Wild animals belong in the wild."
Then, when I was too old to be a camper, and started volunteering at the camp instead, I met a councilor who didn't share this view. Back when she was a kid, before Massachusetts passed a broad-based ban on keeping any native wildlife except reptiles, she took in a baby raccoon, which she had raised as a pet and had so many stories about.
There are a handful of arguments against taking baby animals from the wild:
- Conservation. Some of these species may be endangered.
- - Animal welfare. People may not know how to care for these animals.
- - Disease. Carnivores and bats may carry rabies (other animals too, but less commonly), armadillos may carry leprosy, and rodents (our closest relatives native to North America) carry all sorts of nasty diseases, particularly the hantavirus.
- - Tameness. Animals that aren't domesticated will almost never be as tame as domesticated animals. Getting scratched or bitten is almost inevitable with many species (though it's also almost inevitable for cats and hamsters), and they will make a mess of your house.
- - Animal rights. Cats and dogs are bad enough. It is not acceptable to use a non-domesticated animal for our own edification.
As for the other arguments, they're valid arguments, however the people who make them seem only to look at the costs and not even considering the benefits into their analysis.
- Conservation. As I've noted, there are some endangered species that are thriving in the wild. Conservation organizations often refuse to even acknowledge captive populations until a species goes extinct in the wild. The only species which will be preserved are charismatic species which make good pets, but given how often in situ conservation fails, keeping species alive for the pet trade should at least be seen as a slight net positive. Wouldn't it be nice if the Carolina parakeet and passenger pigeon had survived because some of the people who had kept them as pets before the MBTA was passed had been allowed, even encouraged to breed them.
- - Environmental consciousness. There's a reason some Australian conservationists are in favor of keeping native wildlife as pets. Dogs and cats (particularly cats) are terrible for the ecosystems in which they're allowed even some degree of free range. Native species, such as the quoll, are much less destructive. They don't kill for fun (unlike cats) and they're not as efficient as predators. Though not quite as drastic, I imagine the same argument could be made for raccoons and skunks vs. vats and dog in the US. Plus most exotic pets are kept either indoors or in full enclosures, and have little-to-no contact with the local wildlife.
- - Education. Properly caring for a new species means learning about its habits and environment, ideally before taking it in, and means getting to watch its behavior after you take it in. Massachusetts allows residents to take certain reptiles and amphibians from the wild for precisely this reason.
- - Edification. It's fun to have a "wild" animal; its behaviors aren't as predictable as a cat or dog's.
The Migratory Treaty Bird Act, the same piece of legislation which means I cannot have a grackle or a blue jay as a pet is instructive. While it has a blanket prohibition on keeping any native bird, or any part of any native bird, there are exceptions. The best-known exception is for gamebirds, which can be hunted and farmed dependent on state regulations. Another is for wildlife rehabilitators keeping birds which cannot be released into the wild for educational purposes. The third is instructive, because it's the only exemption which allows taking eggs/baby birds from the wild and raising them. That exception is falconry.
Birds of prey generally don't make good pets, since they're not cuddly, can seriously injure you, and require a lot more care than many bird. Keeping birds of prey is therefore more of a commitment than keeping a mockingbird or chickadee would be. Falconry requires an apprenticeship, which is prohibitive. When I was a teenager, there was a falconer willing to take me as an apprentice. However my father was unwilling to drive me several days a week to a falconer who lived over half an hour away. Then as an adult who could drive himself other issues intervened. Still, I learned about falconry, and I think our system is preferable to the British system, where anybody with the money can buy a hawk or an owl, but you have to have the money to buy a captive-bred one.
However for most native species, better model might be the license to keep native wildlife South Australia and Victoria offer, or a wildlife rehabilitation license in the US (and likely most of the developed world). That usually involves taking some sort of course and some sort of a test, and for rehabbers involves inspection of facilities. However the native wildlife you can keep in South Australia or Victoria must be obtained from a breeder: no taking a baby bandicoot from the wild. And wildlife rehabilitators release any animals that can be rehabilitated, and the unrehabilitatable animals they take in are usually adults, meaning they'll never be as tame as an animal raised from infancy.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think that we should allow to take baby animals of native species from the wild and raise them as pets; I want to do it and I think the benefits outweigh the costs. At the same time, I recognize that there are some legitimate concerns with this.
I would propose that certain warm-blooded species, those which are easy to care for, common, and not major vectors of human-communicable diseases should be legal to take from the wild as pets in small numbers. This would likely include certain particularly adaptable birds and probably the Virginia opossum. For more difficult animals there be some sort of licensing, similar to that for wildlife rehabilitation, including an inspection of facilities. For mammals which can be disease vectors, it would be nice some sort of blood testing for rabies that doesn't kill the animal could be developed, but it seems likely that the best solution would be training on how to watch for communicable diseases the in animals one takes in and how to avoid getting infected until you're sure an animal is clean.
In short, I most emphatically do not believe that "wild animals belong in the wild."